“This Is Part Of The Battlefield”
Sergeant David D. Aguina returned to the YearlyKos gathering on Saturday, a day after he had been unceremoniously thrown out of a panel on the military and progressives. This time he may have been out of uniform, but he told PJM's Rick Moran and Andrew Marcus, that he would never give up his fight. ADDENDUM: Blog reaction to this post can be found here. Author's commentary and updates here.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
When Sergeant David D. Aguina stepped up to the microphone at the YearlyKos forum on the panel on “The Military and Progressives: Are they that Different?” and began to quietly rebut many of the points that had been made about the failure of “The Surge,” he knew he wouldn’t have an easy time of it. That is why he prepared a four-inch thick loose leaf binder full of charts, graphs, releases from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and Central Command, as well as articles from the mainstream media.
But for all his preparation, he was still taken by surprise when one of the panelists, John Soltz, founder of the anti-war group Votevets.Org, took him to task and silenced him on the grounds that Aguina was wearing his uniform while expressing his political opinions.
“Technically, he was right,” Aguina concedes. “He is a commissioned officer in the army and I follow the rules. I will respect his authority which is why today, I came in civilian uniform.”
Aguina spoke to Pajamas Media on Saturday, returning to YearlyKos the day after he was led away from the panel by Soltz, now blending into the crowd in a charcoal gray suit with a white shirt and a black tie.
Despite his change of wardrobe, he remains boiling mad at Solz for angrily chastising him in public for violating military regulations. If he wants to get technical about it, Aguina counters, two can play at that game.
“If I’m in violation of AR670-1 which is the regulation he brought up, then he’s in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88 which says no commissioned officer can criticize a government official.”
Aguina also pointed out that Stolz violated the code of behavior between a commissioned and non commissioned officer. “Article 91,” he said, forbids a commissioned officer from criticizing a non commissioned officer, and behaving in the “condescending” manner in which he was treated. “People in that audience didn’t have to see an American soldier be as rude and disrespectful toward another American soldier.”
Why did he bother attending a conference and a panel where he knew he wouldn’t be welcome? He had come to a conference attended largely by anti-war and even some anti-military netroots because he said, “This is part of the battlefield.”*
(Aguina is currently attending Western Illinois University majoring in Political Science with a minor in Military Science. While Pajamas Media can confirm that Sergeant Aguina is in the army reserves, we have yet to confirm that he served in Iraq as he said he has. UPDATED: We have received documents proving he indeed served in Iraq.)
Accompanied by his mother Iris Hernandez, the young reservist quietly, politely but persistently approaching YearlyKos attendees and tried to make the case that the surge is working and that we shouldn’t abandon the Iraqi government or people.
“A lot of the people here, they’re pretty much fixed in their opinion. But there are some who are logical, they’re smart and they’re good people and they understand the argument I’m making. So they’re pretty much fixed in their opinion but they can’t prove me wrong.”
Aguina believes that the “netroots” - Soltz in particular, had used the uniform issue as an excuse to muddy the waters regarding what he had to say.
“They disagree with me because of my message, but they used the technicality of the uniform to try and influence something. And believe me, John Soltz? I am not done with him yet. I was up all night researching the USMCJ finding all the things he did wrong.”
“He lost his professional standard when he couldn’t control himself on stage.”
Did he really expect to change anyone’s mind?.
“I understand trying to change people’s mind is a lot harder than it would seem or I would like it to be. I’m just here to provide information for people. If they want to talk, if they want to know, I’ll just show them.”
He said that the conference-goers had treated him with respect and listened carefully to what he had to say, arguing strenuously against him but hearing him out nonetheless.
“There’s quite few people here who are open-minded and will listen. And even if they don’t agree with me, I at least thank them for listening. I’ve dealt with other people who insult me and then walk away.”
“This isn’t something political for me. I have an emotional connection with those people in Iraq.”
To illustrate his point, he tells the story of one day while he was on guard duty, protecting a group of Iraqi workers, his command was unable or unwilling to supply him with lunch.
“With the little food they had - and I mean little food - they each pitched in some of their own lunch so that I could eat. It’s amazing that 5 Shiites and 2 Sunnis cared more about my well-being than my own soldiers.
Sergeant Aguina then took a candy wrapper out of his wallet where he had carefully folded it.
It was just a wrapper. But for him, it was a reminder that there are many Iraqis who are grateful for the American presence and that his personal connection with those people was worth standing up in a place like YearlyKos where there was passionate objections to his views and opinions.
“That act of compassion meant so much to me that I kept the wrapper from the first piece of food they gave me and I kept it in my body armor for the rest of the time I was in Iraq to remind me that there’s a lot of good people over there that deserve to be free.”
Rick Moran blogs at Right Wing Nut House, where he has written more on his impression of Sgt. Aguina and responds to some of the comments below.
*this quote was earlier attributed by Aguina to Gen. Petraeus. He has since told PJM that it was misattributed.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
84 Comments
Klaus:His fight to what?
Spread false information: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070801/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_070801091932
Aguina’s entire argument is premised on fantasy, regardless of what he claims to have ‘read somewhere.’ Perhaps Aguina should familiarize himself with the facts before he uses his uniform to play ‘martyr’ for a disinformation campaign.
Aug 5, 2007 - 11:02 am Klaus:“Iraqi deaths spike five months into US troop surge”
by Joseph Krauss Wed Aug 1, 5:19 AM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - The number of Iraqi civilians killed in the country’s brutal civil conflict rose by more than a third in July despite a five-month-old surge in US troop levels, government figures showed Wednesday.
At least 1,652 civilians were killed in Iraq in July, 33 percent more than in the previous month, according to figures compiled by the Iraqi health, defence and interior ministries and made available to AFP.
Casualties continued to mount as a massive car bomb tore through a major Baghdad intersection — the fifth such blast to strike the city centre in the past week — killing at least 10 people.
Meanwhile, two critical reports emerged pointing to weaknesses in American efforts to rebuild and stabilise Iraq, which has been in the grip of several overlapping civil conflicts for more than four years.
July’s civilian toll was slightly higher than the number for February, when the United States began a “surge” in troops aimed at flooding Baghdad with reinforcements to stem Iraq’s sectarian bloodletting.
Aug 5, 2007 - 11:20 am Klaus:And just for the record, to help the fact-challenged out there, the civilian casualties for every month since the ‘Surge’ began have been far higher than they were in the same month of 2006.
Aug 5, 2007 - 11:26 am Thom:“Technically, he [Jon soltz] was right,” Aguina concedes. “He is a commissioned officer in the army and I follow the rules. I will respect his authority which is why today, I came in civilian uniform
Mea culpas coming soon from Malkin, LGF, you, and others?
Aug 5, 2007 - 11:58 am neil:“While Pajamas Media can confirm that Sergeant Aguina is in the army reserves, we have yet to confirm that he served in Iraq as he said he has.”
I am sorry, why have you not confirmed this point yet?
Aug 5, 2007 - 12:15 pm Hesiod:So, I guess he wasn’t censored after all? He’s been allowed to wander around Yearly Kos trying to convince people they are wrong about Iraq.
It is rather ironic that he says he gets a respectful reception from people there.
I remember when a reporter from The Nation was denied press credentials by the College Republicans.
Did Pajamas media defend that? Did they call it censorship?
Aug 5, 2007 - 12:19 pm Dom:It seems plausible that the Sergeant offended some military regulation by addressing the public in his uniform while not in any official military function. The seriousness of such a possible violation will be assessed by his command, and if they conclude he deserves some reprimand, he will receive it, and that’s only fair.
That is not the same as the behavior of the supposed “moderator”, who violated the most basic rules of common courtesy. We don’t need any expertise in military regulations to recognize bullying and intimidation when we see it. Like the rest of us, the Sergeant is a citizen in the first place, one who has shown both courage and courtesy in a situation in which the potential for adversity was not just some hypothetical concept, but a dramatically demonstrated fact.
Exposure to the possible retributions of military discipline is not the worst personal risk a serviceman is facing when he presents his personal testimony about the efforts of his peers in Iraq. He is facing the personal hostility of people who place partisanship above reason, and I’m afraid that’s a lot harder to take.
It is clear that he can take it, anyway. My heartfelt Kudos to the brave citizen soldier. Dom.
Aug 5, 2007 - 12:54 pm bnelson44:An appeal to support the mission that active members of the military can sign:
http://appealforcourage.com
Aug 5, 2007 - 1:17 pm Kevlaur:Actually, according to Brookings Institute, deaths are down
http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
I think that story meant civilians killed by mass casualty bombings.
Next, the soldier in question is not stumping for a political candidate, nor espousing any particular political view. He is saying that the surge is working; which is what many people are saying. AR 670-1 to wit: Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:
(1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian
employment.
(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except
as authorized by competent authority.
(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
(4) When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
(5) When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.
The question is, was it a speech, or a question?
So, YOU get your facts straight.
Kevlaur
Aug 5, 2007 - 1:22 pm LoveThatKos:That food story was pretty sad. Why would this man’s fellow soldiers deny him food? I think that should be the story that gets investigated next.
Aug 5, 2007 - 1:30 pm Carolynp:Can someone tell me how I can buy this guy a beer?
Aug 5, 2007 - 1:48 pm James M.:“While Pajamas Media can confirm that Sergeant Aguina is in the army reserves, we have yet to confirm that he served in Iraq as he said he has.”
I mean no disrespect to Sgt. Aguina when I say this, and I admit that I’m being paranoid, but I wouldn’t put it past DailyKos to have one of their activists pretend to be pro-war long enough and behave reasonably enough to be adopted as a cause by pro-war folks…so that he could be discredited later.
Aug 5, 2007 - 1:49 pm Kevlaur:Actually, according to Brookings Institute, deaths are down
http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
I think that story meant civilians killed by mass casualty bombings.
Next, the soldier in question is not stumping for a political candidate, nor espousing any particular political view. He is saying that the surge is working; which is what many people are saying. AR 670-1 to wit: Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:
(1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian
employment.
(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except
as authorized by competent authority.
(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
(4) When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
(5) When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.
The question is, was it a speech, or a question?
So, YOU get your facts straight.
Kevlaur
Aug 5, 2007 - 1:52 pm Vyan:Me, a lowly civilian, has a full detailed rebuttal of Sargeant Aguina’s accusations that Soltz violated the UCMJ posted here on Dkos - for any who care.
Vyan
Aug 5, 2007 - 1:56 pm Big Brother:SUBCHAPTER X. PUNITIVE ARTICLES
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Aug 5, 2007 - 2:01 pm Michael:Klaus, perhaps you should “read” more as well. Peak casualty rates were in Aug/Sept 2006. What will you do this month in comparison for your stats? As the numbers will be down unless Al Qaeda can muster a new onslaught of nutjobs to blow themselves up. What Petraeus brought to the table works. It does take time, but his strategy is paying off. Even NYTs article from the Brookings boys(who are no fans of Bush) admitted the turnaround and recommended extended stay.
The young man is not playing “matyr” for anyone. He’s simply brought light into the smelly swamp of muck and grime that is far leftist lost souls. Predictably, he was lashed out at by one of the darkened hearts, go figure.
Truth is the Surge is working as Iraqis stand up against Al Qaeda. This is war if you have not noticed, not some Beauchamp fantasy writer competition for TNR in Kuwait. If you want to talk about lies we can do that all day for the far leftist that play into the DailyKomrades hate-filled agenda, conspiracy theory “Bush did it” band of clueless mites.
He is speaking up for the truth.
Fact: 1) Anbar has turned around
2) Same process is now being duplicated in Diyala
3) Iraqi Army is growing stronger
4) Iraqi people, Sheik leaders are now joining the fight against Al Qaeda
I am amazed by people like you who only hope for defeat, gloom and doom. How do you ever live in life? Smoke more reefer?
Stats from Icasualty.org…
Date, IA/IP, Civilian
Jul-06 217 1063
Aug-06 233 2733
Sep-06 150 3389 - peak
Oct-06 224 1315
Nov-06 123 1741
Dec-06 123 1629
Jan-07 91 1711
Feb-07 150 2864
Mar-07 215 2762
Apr-07 300 1521
May-07 198 1782
Jun-07 197 1148
Jul-07 232 1458
Aug-07 20 201 (thru 5 days)
Note that July is 10th in terms of stats and that the trend has been downward since the Sammara Mosque bombing. Oh, BTW, they killed that nutjob just recently.
We’ve found more weapons caches in the first 6 mos of this year than in all of 2006. That is another fact.
One last fact:
The Defeatocrat surrender leaders of Pelosi/Reid do not have enough votes.
Petraeus will report good news on the military strategy. There will still be loss of life of innocents due to our enemy, you know the terrorist who want to blow everyone to hell? The ones that came from Afghanistan/Pakistan and answer to Al Qaeda?
Wake up. Running from your enemy only induces him to follow you home. Paying off bullies never works and pretending nothing is wrong in the world, hiding your head in the sand only makes a nice big fat target to get your butt kicked.
Aug 5, 2007 - 2:24 pm djtyg:Then why haven’t they thrown him out, BB? Is it because he makes sure to do it on his civilian time, as he is a reservist?
Aguina is probably a reservist as well, based on his unit patch. But he still needs to be in civies to speak publicly.
Aug 5, 2007 - 2:36 pm GrayEagle:The Surge is working great, and as most people neither understand the surge or its success it is easy to listen to those who claim it is failing or; “unsustainable.” btw, Klaus: that link is a dead end, so way to spread misinformation man.
Aug 5, 2007 - 2:54 pm Walter E. Wallis:I agree with Kevlaur. It is not political to defend the actions and performance of the military. To claim that a man in uniform may not challege slurs on the performance of the military is fatuous. The Captain, on the other hand, is obviously violating his oath and should be cashiered.
Aug 5, 2007 - 2:54 pm John Moore:Uniform or not, he was censored for his speech, consistent with the fascistic nature of the hard left.
Do we really believe that the suppression of most of the recording was because the guy might have been in violation of the UCMJ? Hah!
It is unfortunate that the sargeant wore his uniform. He made a tactical mistake. Hey may end up suffering military punishment also.
The country has a strong tradition of civilian supremacy, hence these sorts of rules.
Of course, the officer who attacked him is just as out of line. After all, he used his military position (even though he was out of uniform) against the sargeant, hence making himself as much an anauthorized spokesman for them as the sargeant.
The fact is that the left (and their friends in the media, for the most part) don’t want to hear anything which contradicts their narrative that the US is an evil oppressor, as trite and tired as that has become.
Aug 5, 2007 - 3:04 pm Miracle Max:Why does anybody think you can walk into somebody’s meeting and at a time of your choosing, with the benefit of “a four-inch thick loose leaf binder full of charts, graphs, releases from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and Central Command, as well as articles from the mainstream media,” get up and deliver a speech?
It boggles the mind.
Try it at the president’s next “town hall” (sic) meeting, and tell me how it works for you.
Aug 5, 2007 - 3:25 pm Kat:Dom,
The moderator is also a commissioned officer. It would seem to me that he would be well within his purview to inform the Sgt. that he was breaching regulations. If the moderator knew that the soldier had already been privately reproached by General Clark, it’s entirely possible that Soltz needed to be a bit more firm in his attempt to remind the uniformed soldier that he broke regulations.
By defying both Soltz and Clark, two officers, the Sgt. also violated: 809 ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Aug 5, 2007 - 3:27 pm Wade F. Godot:I thought the surge was going just SWIMMINGLY.
Aug 5, 2007 - 3:29 pm BC:“At least 1,652 civilians were killed in Iraq in July, 33 percent more than in the previous month, according to figures compiled by the Iraqi health, defence and interior ministries and made available to AFP.”…”July’s civilian toll was slightly higher than the number for February, when the United States began a “surge” in troops aimed at flooding Baghdad with reinforcements to stem Iraq’s sectarian bloodletting.”
The moderator is also a commissioned officer.
You misspelled “sanctimonious *sshole”.
Aug 5, 2007 - 3:42 pm DebzLogic:Unfortunately, I think we may be looking at someone with one of the signature injuries of this war. I felt sad watching. He was totally wrong about civilian casualties, up a 1/3 actually. And, any reasonable person knows he was breaking military law. The whole thing was hard to watch.
Aug 5, 2007 - 4:11 pm DaMav:It seems clear that Aguina should not have worn his uniform. At the same time, Solz had no authority from the military to enforce military codes, only to report him to his commanding officer. Instead, Stolz made every attempt to intimidate him and shut off his mike and not allow dissent. Stolz wasn’t interested in codes he was interested in making sure that nobody got to present a contrary point of view. He just used the code as a means of suppressing dissent. Even Clark was obviously embarassed by Stolz brown shirt style behavior.
Aug 5, 2007 - 4:41 pm Robert B.:And so it all comes down to sources for data.
Both sources: the government and the anti-war groups have data AND agendas.
How much of your opinion has been tainted by your upbringing and friends?
Aug 5, 2007 - 5:04 pm Hogarth:(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
Well, they’ve obviously got him nailed with that one.
Aug 5, 2007 - 5:08 pm dontblameme:From what I’ve read, looking at casualties are a bad way to look at whether the war is going well or not. It should not be used to show progress, or decline. The goal of this surge was to give the Iraqi government time to pass important legislation and come to an agreement on how to move forward. What I think is important to note is how they can not meet any benchmarks that are set for them. I have a bad feeling that they have become comfortable with the american presense, and they see it as neverending. No matter what anyone says right now on a blog or at a convention, we will see the results soon enough. I just hope if it indeed does not work, that we can agree that time is running out for this war.
Aug 5, 2007 - 5:21 pm Major Scarlet:don’t worry, captain soltz will be getting a visit from the Army Inspector General concerning his actions at YearlyKos and his operation of the VoteVets website. there is a fine line between visibility and exposure.. and CPT Soltz is exposed.
Aug 5, 2007 - 5:25 pm Kat:BC,
So let me get this straight…
Reminding an active duty soldier dressed in uniform about a code that he is bound, by oath, to uphold makes Soltz a sanctimonious *sshole?
The Sgt. knew what he was doing. He’d been told that he was breaking the regs. His was a conscious decision to keep on breaking those regs. And he did so while defying two higher ranking officers.
What exactly does that make him?
None of it would have happened if he’d been wearing jeans and a t-shirt.
Aug 5, 2007 - 5:38 pm Chris:Deb,
Are you kidding me? What, pray tell, is Sgt Aguina’s “signature” injury? Is that part of supportin’ the troops you guys talk so much about? Slander, support, what’s the dif?
And it is highly entertaining, bordering on hysterical, listening to lefties expound on the UCMJ. This Stolz (sp?) character is especially comical. While I respect his service, I wonder what he thinks about unauthorized commissioned officers (Ltjg’s specifically) negotiating with the leaders of a country his military is at war with? Or did he vote against Kerry in 2004?
Yes, this has been heartening watching the left embrace the UCMJ. What’s next for our progressives? Supply side economics? And I thought you couldn’t teach old dogs new tricks.
Aug 5, 2007 - 5:40 pm Vyan:It’s debatable whether Aguina’s comments specifically crossed the political line in the sand, but simply being at the event in uniform is questionable to start with.
Be that as it may, the fact is that this has happened before.
So the arguement that this wouldn’t or couldn’t happen to an anti-Iraq protestor is hogwash - it already has. Again Kokesh was not disciplined for what he said at the event, only his later comments and for being at the event in uniform.
And it’s not like the right-wing via Newsbreakers were terribly upset about a soldier such as Kokesh losing his free-speech rights.
Btw, noone stopped Aguina from speaking - he said everything he wanted to say. The forum ended and Soltz - rather urgently - advised him that he might be facing the same type of disciplinary action that Kokesh and others have faced in the past.
Vyan
Aug 5, 2007 - 6:02 pm paulnashtn:Obviously you are unaware that KOS is now the CENTER of the democratic party
“Hogarth :
Aug 5, 2007 - 6:14 pm Sarah Van:(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
Well, they’ve obviously got him nailed with that one.”
If Soltz is indeed a reserve officer, charges should be brought against him and he should appear before a courts martial board. He has pimped his uniform on votevets.org, a leftist advocacy group and has made false and derogatory statements against the President, Vice President and SecDef. As a Reserve officer, his conduct is blatantly illegal.
Aug 5, 2007 - 6:14 pm DrCruel:Well Sgt. Aguina is surely correct about one thing. YearlyKos was just another venue for the fight being played out in Iraq. There are people here who clearly support the Coalition efforts, and those who support the other side’s as well.
Aug 5, 2007 - 6:18 pm Juan:John Stoltz’s picture in uniform has been removed from votevets.org.
Aug 5, 2007 - 6:21 pm jpe:Article 91 prohibits disrespectful conduct while the NCO is acting within the scope of his military office.
It’s inapplicable.
Aug 5, 2007 - 6:31 pm Sarah van:Juan:
It’s still there.
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=199&Itemid=80
Aug 5, 2007 - 6:36 pm Chris:Vyan,
Your comparison of Aguina to this Kokesh character is interesting but also quite a different kettle of fish. It would appear that Kokesh wore a part of his uniform in an anti-war protest. It also looks like he was no longer on active or active reserve duty at the time. I really don’t care, however. Aguina acknowledged his mistake and apologized. Kokesh writes the Marine Corps and tells them “F&*% you”. But the Kossacks want to throw the book at Aguina. Why? Because he used their own tactic against them, and quite effectively at that. I can’t think of any other reason.
And Kat, my earlier comment should be read as directed toward you as well.
“The Sgt. knew what he was doing. He’d been told that he was breaking the regs. His was a conscious decision to keep on breaking those regs. And he did so while defying two higher ranking officers.
What exactly does that make him?”
It makes him speaking truth to power. No? Isn’t what the left has told us for well on 40 years now? I’ve got to say it again. This new found respect for rules and regs you guys have discovered WRT the UCMJ is wonderful to behold. And do you honestly believe that some inactive reserve officer or a retired officer can actually order a soldier to do anything?
Aug 5, 2007 - 6:36 pm Yehudit:Yes, this has been heartening watching the left embrace the UCMJ. What’s next for our progressives? Supply side economics? And I thought you couldn’t teach old dogs new tricks.
They also learned to embrace the CIA. Did you ever think you’d see the day when the Left would passionately defend the right of a CIA officer to remain covert?
Aug 5, 2007 - 7:03 pm juan:You are correct, Sarah van. Sorry, my error.
Aug 5, 2007 - 7:18 pm Chris:Y,
Aug 5, 2007 - 7:22 pm ryannon:Touche. I should have remembered that it was the left who schooled us all in the nuance of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act as well. They had no concept about the application of that one, just like they don’t seem to here with this Aguina kid.
A brave and obstinate little guy who has my sympathy and admiration. I wish him all success in spreading his message.
As for Stoltz, he comes off as just another neighborhood bully/control freak.
I would have been embarassed to be on the same panel with him - let alone the same room.
Aug 5, 2007 - 7:26 pm Al:I wouldn’t take the SGT’s self penalty as the truth yet. There are instances where a reservist may wear a uniform. He may or may not have been technically ok to wear it but what he did was so far down on the list of “who cares” that it won’t ever matter. Stoltz on the other hand in civilian clothes used his rank (I presume he is an officer) to inimidate the sgt in a way that was a. not his to do b. not in his chain of command and c. made him look more of an idiot than anyone in the room. So, thanks for bringing this to my attention; I surely will be watching him in the media and ensure when he blabbers about free speech in a future (running for office) that this entire episode is first on his brochures that will be distributed at his rally. Oh, and Clark is retired. His powers are not what he thinks. It’s just humorous that the KOS Klowns got caught doing what liberals love to do, cut off speech by others.
Aug 5, 2007 - 7:32 pm lifeofthemind:A public open forum on the military, such as the Kos advertised, is not a political rally. It may have been a tax-exempt educational activity. As such I can see no bar to the Sgt. attending and offering a factual rebuttal from the floor. What the Sgt. is reported as having done was not a political activity. The agitprop theater that Kokesh participated in was an explicitly political activity. It appears also that Stoltz also has explicitly used his uniform for political activity.
Aug 5, 2007 - 7:42 pm Assistant Village Idiot:I am finding amusing the spin of the folks trying to tell us that Soltz was merely reminding him of his obligations and advising him that he might be facing disciplinary actions.
Yes, it’s abundantly clear that he was motivated only by concern for the young Sergeant. Those of us who have brought up teenagers are familiar with these types of ridiculous reframes.
I think dontblamme’s point is well taken. Casualties are more a measure of the cost of a war than a measure of its success.
Aug 5, 2007 - 7:58 pm Kevin P.:Hmmmm, Captain Jon Soltz….
ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Jon Soltz in a Huffington Post column:
Aug 5, 2007 - 8:24 pm Yehudit:In that sense, this president, everyday, firms up his legacy as the worst Commander-in-Chief this nation has ever seen.
I read through some of the comments here, just for fun.
Some speculation that he wasn’t registered because he wasn’t wearing his lanyard and badge, someone says no, she checked him in, he did pay. …..
Lots of patronizing Lefty crocodile tears and instant psychoanalysis: The poor soldier must have PTSD, seemed unbalanced, afraid of what he might do, so obviously brainwashed that he believes the surge is working ….
Lots of armchair interpretation of military regs…. the real soldiers debating did Stoltz REALLY step in it or did he just step in it….
speculation that Aguina was a plant sent by Michelle Malkin …….
ah the human comedy….
Aug 5, 2007 - 8:50 pm Yehudit:From the same thread:
“he showed up again in another panel (see my comment below) and took up quite a bit of time. John Stauber from The Center for Media and Democracy was quite generous in calling on him first and allowing him quite a bit of time to make his point, even though he ultimately had to cut him off to allow the others in the room to participate. Not a harsh or disagreeable word was spoken to him, and an older vet (not of the Iraq war) did address him, very kindly, in a valid rebuttal of his point.”
[ ME: It will be interesting to see these. I don’t know that Sgt. Aguina is doing himself any good by spreading himself so thin. By now they are probably rolling their eyes when he walks in the door. ]
I saw the pro-war dude at the Coffee with the Troops breakfast, where he recapped what happened at the previous panel. Can i just say - the guy is a douche. I think it’s good to reach out to the other side and engage in civil discourse BUT he was very selfish in taking up quite a bit of time in the breakfast and his point was really a poor one.
He wanted to prove that the surge decreased the # of Iraqi civilian casualties. You know what? Iraq can take care of Iraq, or a coalition of nations who aren’t after Iraq’s oil can take care of Iraq. We need to take care of America. What about the number of our kids dying? Is that going down? What about the number of our kids being taken out of school, or the number of children being raised with fathers or mothers who are in Iraq, or the number of divorces or PTSD cases or amputations as a result of the war?”
I saw him there, too at the Iraq Veterans Against the War coffee meeting this morning. That same sleezy camera guy (you’re all saying that was Pajamas Media?) was there. Thing is he was not wearing his uniform (he was wearing a suit) and the IVAW, which is a more left wing org than votevets.org, let him speak.
My feelings are that a) this was an ambush, BUT b) I still feel sorry for the guy. He may be associated with right wing organizations, but he does not seem to be doing well. I hope that Votevets.org or another veteran organization can help him get the help he needs.
I was also there at the Military progressives forum, and it struck me as a military matter — that the guy was breaking the rules and Jon Stolz was doing what needed to be done. Honestly, at first I thought he was a lefty against the war, then thought he was for the war, that’s how bizarre his speech sounded to me. I don’t know why the Right Wing Blogs think this is a way to go after the Kos convention. It’s too damned sad to use for a political attack.
[ ME: They really think some right-wing outfit sent this guy in. It’s incomprehensible to them that he would do it on his own, because they would never show up at an event hostile to their position at all. ]
Aug 5, 2007 - 9:01 pm Dom:Kat, defending the moderator’s position, writes:
“It would seem to me that he would be well within his purview to inform the Sgt. that he was breaching regulations”.
Your denial of the difference between informing the sergeant and threatening him is a manifestation of your tolerance for bullying behavior.
Aug 5, 2007 - 9:23 pm Menlo Bob:So is it Jon Stolz’s position that he has the responsibility to enforce the law about wearing the uniform to promote US policy? Wouldn’t every officer briefing soldiers be subject to the same sanctions?
Aug 5, 2007 - 10:39 pm Vyan:Just for the record.
No, it’s not - sorry.
And Aguina wore his entire uniform to a partisan political convention. Who was the greater violator of the regs?
Yet again, Aguina is a current reservist. How does his deliberate violation of standing regulations reflect on him compared to Kokesh who was no longer active or in the reserves?
Surprise, surprise…
That was after he stated on camera that his violation was justified in support of the Iraqi people and some sort of odd counter-balance to soldiers who violated the regs (and the laws of war) at Abu Ghraib.
Yeah. Kind of a bone-head move, but I guess that’s what it takes to speak “Truth to Power” (/Snark)
Because he - like Kokesh for writing that dick-head letter - deserves it, but more importantly what Soltz was doing was trying to keep Aquina from perpetrating the violation in the first place. If he’d listened to him and to Gen Clark - who had warned him about the uniform the previous day - none of this would have been an issue. He made a consciouse choice and he will likely be the one to pay for that choice.
It’s political theater, but it works for both sides. Aguina has shown that he didn’t come to engage in honest debate, he came to make a scene and start a controvery which might very well have dire consequences for him in the near future.
Mission(s) Accomplished.
No, you can speak the truth but you don’t have to neccesarily become an outlaw to do it. That is an extreme position coming from either camp. If you want to continue to support willful lawlessness, fine - you can do that, but also recognize that it’s entirely fair that people like Aquina be held accountable under the regs and the law just as Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King, Martin Sheen and many others who’ev all been jailed for their acts of non-violent protest. I don’t think Aguina’s act rises to their level, but at least be honest and admit he should be willing and able to pay the price for his willful and knowing actions - just as all those people were - particular since he’s done this before.
They probably can’t in all honesty, although a heathy dose of advise shouldn’t be ignored - but what do you mean “newfound?” I’ve been arguing that the Bush Administration has violated the UCMJ repeated for years now. Particularly Article 92 as it pertains to Obeying Lawful Orders and War Crimes. This isn’t new to me or many people on the left.
Vyan
Aug 5, 2007 - 10:45 pm Randall Vorisek:Technically speaking Sgt Aquina has not broken any rules or laws to date under either AR670-1 or under DODI 1334.01.
It is amazing how the “progressives” always have a reason,excuse,compulsion to silence any debate or discourse that challenges thier pseudo-religious dogma.
They claim every vote must count and they care about US Sevice Personel. Yet at the same time doing there best to disenfranchise the votes of literally THOUSANDS serviceman who was overseas in the 2000 election. They did this by attempting to have Military ballots cast overseas tossed out by a Judge (remember the Democrats lost and the Military votes had to be counted.)
The attack and attempt to intimidate Sgt Aguino while claiming some sort of benevolent intent in this case is beyond weird. Claiming the vitriol displayed towards this soldier was because they were enforcing the law is insulting to the intelligence of everyone attending this event or watching it unfold anywhere else for that matter.
Aug 5, 2007 - 11:48 pm David Franz:Clearly Jon Soltz and his thugs think they can just say anything and we are all to dumb to know the difference.
Soltz may have been “technically” right, but he had no authority whatsoever to back up his threats. His claim of “I will do this to you” is an empty threat at best and a DELUSION at worst. Soltz:
A.) Is not in that Soldier’s DIRECT Chain of Command. A Company Commander has UCMJ authority…someone in the IRR does not.
B.) Fails to realize that, even though he’s in the IRR, he still has a unit with him on their books…and I’m pretty sure that his Battalion Commander wouldn’t look very kindly on some of the things he’s done.
C.) Was guilty of “Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentlemen” as soon as he started trying to bully the NCO.
The SGT, at his next Battle Assembly, will probably receive Non-Judicial Punishment at the Company level at worst; more likely a negative counseling statement.
CPT Franz
Aug 6, 2007 - 2:32 am Randall Vorisek:I still believe Soltz was totally out of line here.
Aug 6, 2007 - 2:55 am ES:Specifically which section(s) of either AR670-1 or DODI 1334.01 did SGT Aguina violate?
Nothing should happen to SGT Aquina. He has conducted himself Honorably. CPT Soltz has not.
For those complaining that there are old pictures of Soltz in uniform at VoteVets, it is not against regs to use old pictures of yourself in uniform, which is why VetsForFreedom has pictures of themselves in uniform up, why George HW Bush could use pictures of himself in uniform during the campaign, as did Bob Dole, Kennedy, etc etc.
Aug 6, 2007 - 5:35 am Rick Moran:At the risk of seeming to butt into this excellent argument over protocols, is there any reason why what Aguina actually said is not being discussed here?
Does he have a valid point about the surge? And what about the propriety of him doing this at YKos?
Aug 6, 2007 - 6:32 am Fred Beloit:Some of the comments above give the impression that General Clark has some kind of authority over the Sergeant. I am under the impression that Clark is retired. If that is correct, Clark not only has zero authority over a Sergeant, but no authority over even a Recruit.
Aug 6, 2007 - 6:41 am Chris:Vyan,
The difference between wearing part of your uniform to an anti-war gathering (Kokesh) and wearing the entire thing (Aguina) to an educational forum seems lost on you. One guy has defaced the uniform while the other hasn’t, even if he’s in very technical violation of Army reg’s.
Which gets to Rick’s question. What about what Aguina said? He says the surge is working. That seems to be self-evident to many of us. That’s why he was challenged on technicalities rather than on the facts, Rick. And that is the story, imo.
Aug 6, 2007 - 8:44 am Chris:Vyan,
Aug 6, 2007 - 8:55 am Andy Freeman:Two more things about Aguina and then I’m done. You say he didn’t come to engage in honest debate. Balderdash! I would say based upon the description presented by Rick, he was the one most prepared to discuss Iraq. Soltz just didn’t want to hear it so he attempted to pull rank to silence the guy. Simple as that. And the comparison to Rosa Parks, MLK and Martin Sheen (WTF?) totally lost me. If you’re gonna compare him to anyone, why not John Kerry, just to pick one name out of a hat? He violated the constitution and the UCMJ 75 ways from Sunday while on active and reserve duty. Not little technical violations like you guys are throwing around but honest to goodness treason and sedition. Where is/was your outrage?
If Aguina had spoken in support of the “Iraq is a failure” meme, does anyone believe that Soltz would have behaved as he did?
Aug 6, 2007 - 9:21 am NeoconNews.com:Wait a second! Civilians are dying in a warzone? Well, let’s just call the whole thing off.
I’m still finding it hard to believe that people are using this to advocate U.S. withdraw from Iraq. As many of the posters in this thread have shown, the casualties fluctuate wildly, and it is difficult to get an accurate estimate on war-impacted civilian deaths to begin with. But that is really beside the point, as civilian casualties exist in every single conflict. The United States didn’t go into Iraq primarily for humanitarian reasons, though there are people who believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam (something I will never understand, remember human paper shredders?), we went in on the grounds of national security. Whether the surge is working or not doesn’t have much to do with temporary fluxes in horrible, unfortunate collateral damages. What it does have to do with civilian casualties is that if we do not win in Iraq, many more will die as the regional powers and Al Qaeda no longer have to contend with the U.S. military might and Iraqi civilians are slaughtered left and right. Al Qaeda is the one blowing up civilians without remorse, and they’ll just do it more if we retreat- both in Iraq and here at home.
Aug 6, 2007 - 10:39 am daspig:It is important to understand that the war is real. People have been dying since it began. Although the intentions of our government for being in Iraq may not be as honorable as the intentions of SGT. Aguina, we must remember we cannot abandon those we claim to have liberated at a whim. SGT. Aguina is establishing an arguement that we are a positive presence in Iraq. When we invaded Iraq we (our government and military) became committed to see it through. Unlike CPT. Soltz, SGT Aguina is prepared to see this through. There are many difficult choices young Americans must make in what may be at best a morally ambiguous war. By the way, if you are interested in hearing more rhetoric from SGT. Aguina visit You Tube and search “Guard Duty with 7 Iraqis”.
Aug 6, 2007 - 11:56 am Ryan:David is a good buddy of mine and for any of you doubting his tours in Iraq, your wrong! I was with him from 05-06 but i also know he was deployed before i even got to the unit
Aug 6, 2007 - 12:19 pm Ryan:I was with him in Iraq from 05-06.
Aug 6, 2007 - 12:21 pm Doclee:Article 91 refers to insubordinate behavior BY warrant officers and enlisted personnel TOWARD commissioned officers. Not vice versa This means that CPT Stolts can act any way he likes re warrant and enlisted. It isn’t generally smart, but it is done and it isn’t punishable, but there are systems in place to counteract *ssholish behavior on the part of officers. We call them 1SG.
Aug 6, 2007 - 2:08 pm baldilocks:I’ve been arguing that the Bush Administration has violated the UCMJ repeated for years now. Particularly Article 92 as it pertains to Obeying Lawful Orders and War Crimes. This isn’t new to me or many people on the left.
One problem with your argument: the Bush Administration isn’t bound to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, being civilians, and all.
Aug 6, 2007 - 2:54 pm Michael:Negative, Doclee. Disrespect towards Non Commissioned Officers, like Sergeant Aguina, is also covered by Article 91.
Article 91-Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, NCO, or PO
Text. “Any warrant officer or enlisted member who-
(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Aug 6, 2007 - 4:14 pm CHRIS:I think both sides were wrong here. I served for 17 years in active army, reserve and national guard. It was generally accepted that you dont talk in public at all while in uniform unless this was part of your duties (like you were the public affairs officer for the post or something like that). In fact it was generally accepted that you were violating regulations if you were out of uniform and identified yourself as a soldier and then made some sort of personal political statement. This soldier should definitely not have gone to this convention at all in uniform unless sent there by the army with orders to participate in the convention presenting the army’s position.
CPT Stolts also went way beyond his authority. First, a reserve officer who is not on duty attempting to give orders to a soldier is totally off regs. The soldier would have grounds to refuse the order as it is not a legal order since the officer is not on orders and hence has no authority. Attempting to do so may even be a violation of civilian law, particularly if backed up by an attempt or threat to apprehend him if he did not comply with the order. This is to prevent reserve soldiers from ordering each other around when not on military duty. I even had some soldiers in my unit who’s subordinates in the military were their superiors in civilian life. Second, Stolts was about a hair breadths away from getting into a possible assault charge as his tone certainly sounded as though he was making a physical threat against the sergeant. He just didnt handle the situation very well. He should have just told him that the panel was closed to comments and questions and that would be the end of it and if the soldier disrupted the conference they could have had security escort him out. Instead he pulls out his “I’m a Captain and you’re a sergeant and I’m giving you an order” stuff. He is exploiting his status as a veteran to give his political views moral authority and he gets edgy when he loses that advantage when he is talking to someone else with military experience who disagrees with him.
As far as Gen Clark is concerned, he is retired and retains no authority over military personnel. I personally think he’s cracked. He needs some serious couch time to get in touch with his inner wussy. All that blathering about how it is going to take years to heal the military after we get out of Iraq. Give me a break.
Aug 6, 2007 - 5:10 pm Tim:why is it none of you list what branch or rank you had in the military but seem to be able to quote page and verse of military law.
6 years us army
sp/4 UH-1H Crew chief
there is nothing that the Sgt did that is wrong it was not a political rally or meeting. You do not lose your rights to free speech when you join the military though you do have to be carful to what you say.
The moderator was in the wrong of identifying himself as a commissioned officer and using that to shut up the Sgt. I spent 6 years of my life defending your rights to spew as you wished don’t ever try to take that right away from a solder
Aug 6, 2007 - 6:15 pm Nick King:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1631/is_200307/ai_n8994452
I know him directly. He is currently trying to “infiltrate the democratic party” (his words, not mine). He didn’t “fight and bleed” he just served which is not shameful, but dishonorable to say he fought when he didn’t. He is a civilian and he’s in ROTC. He broke the law by wearing his uniform and he used it to get attention. Who is going to tell a uniformed soldier he can’t speak? It’s a tool of coercion. And the sad thing is I support his idea. I’m a republican. But all this does is hurt our reputation.
Aug 6, 2007 - 8:05 pm Michael:10 years 98G Korean linguist and “barracks lawyer.”
Aug 6, 2007 - 8:09 pm moniker1250:One little guy ventures into the bat cave and sets them all to fluttering about and banging into walls. I love it. True to form, the bats try to echo-locate on the form of the dissent rather than the content. I wouldn’t trade one Aguina for a bowl-full of kos-tards.
(Yeah, I cleaned that up.)
Aug 6, 2007 - 8:35 pm tangonine:E-5, AF. And this guy did nothing wrong. There is no prohibition against asking an idiot a question while in uniform.
The Kossak commies are skared of anyone in uniform. Pretty much sums it up.
Aug 6, 2007 - 8:58 pm Vyan:The issue that Kokesh’s uniform may have been only partial (and hence “defaced”) is a fair point except the discipline applied against him doesn’t mention it. Nice theory though.
He was punished for wearing his uniform and holding up a sign counting the number of times Alberto Gonzales told the Congress “I Don’t Recall.” - which if frankly just a matter of record, but was considered “political”.
In Aguina’s case he argued that he could “prove the surge was working”. Some have pointed to the work of O’Hanlon and Pollack to support this view, yet this is contradicted by their own research data.
And although, it would be fair for him to point out that the casualty count went down from 1,941 the previous month to a measly 1,241.
Improvement? Yes, except that it went back up to 1,641 in July.
Violence is down in Anbar Province? Ok, except that we didn’t surge into Anbar Province, we surged into Baghdad and things became far more violent there. The most obvious thing to be noted is that things got better in Anbar when we left it alone.
Aguina claims are clearly political and have been recently echoed by the President, the Vice President and candidates such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani who’ve expressly noted that the information came via the New York Times and therefore couldn’t be “conservatively biased”.
Yeah well, all of Judy Miller’s reporting about pre-war Iraq was published in the NYTimes too and her predictions were pretty much completely off the mark. That “you’re guys said it” trick doesn’t work anymore.
He came with an agenda, not to have a discussion. All his facts and figure in a neat bundle highly prepared to take on all challengers. He was looking for a fight.
“I dare you to prove me wrong.”
Someone like that is not open to a real conversation.
Now, I’m not wishing and hoping and praying for the surge to fail - I hope if doesn’t - but simple observation of how this war’s been completely mismanaged and how the concept of honest diplomacy as we succesfully used in Northern Ireland and Bosnia to end the ethnic strife in both those countries is sorely needed here, yet seems complete alien to this Administration.
No, because he didn’t silence him - he got to talk all he wanted and then the forum ended. In fact the question and answer period had already elapsed and it was only because of various audience members who urged them to add more time for the soldier that he was able to speak all. He wasn’t thrown out, he stayed and obviously came back the next day. He was an attendee not someone who was invited specically to make a speach. He got his two minutes and then some.
They are all people who “broke rules” non-violently for what they felt was higher cause and paid a price (went to jail for it). Aguina should be willing to pay the same price, instead he spends all night trying to distort the UCMJ against Soltz - his Article 88 arguement is pretty weak unless he can prove that Soltz’s saying the Bush is the “worst CIC in history” is either demonstrably untrue and/or he did it under the color of his position and in uniform IMO, while he Article 91 allegation is ludicrous since that reg doesn’t even apply to commisioned officers.
No he didn’t, because AFAIK - this rule didn’t exist then and be he simply testified to thing he had heard from various people at the Winter Soldier event who were under oath (as well as his own experiences).
John Kerry told the truth, sorry to burst you’re bubble on that one but he did. I’ve written about this in detail over a year ago here - so I won’t belabor the point right now.
Frankly, I don’t have a problem with anything Aguina said - because he didn’t really say anything all that interesting. For myself I mostly worry, based on various accounts of his behavior that he may have some emotional instability and that he has been or soon will be used and exploited by the right-wing for their own ends - meanwhile he may suffer disciplinary action for simply for trying to speak his mind.
Vyan
Aug 6, 2007 - 10:23 pm Chris:Vyan,
Aguina is a 25 year old sargeant who admitted making what is at worst a very minor mistake. He showed up to the convention the next day out of uniform. Since you and the Kossacks are such experts on military protocol, please tell me why he was let in to yearly-Kos in his uniform in the first place. I’ll hazard a guess. Nobody gave a damn because they figured he was one of them.
“John Kerry told the truth, sorry to burst you’re bubble on that one but he did. I’ve written about this in detail over a year ago here - so I won’t belabor the point right now.”
John Kerry may have told a version of the truth, who knows? But that’s your opinion. I’m not even claiming for purposes of this argument that Aguina told the truth. It’s irrelevant. Kerry also met with enemies of his country while he was a commissioned officer in the reserve. No concern from any progressives on the various constitutional and UCMJ issues that should have raised.
Aug 7, 2007 - 8:45 am Big Brother:Thank you for your input Vyan. I’m sorry but I hold Misty 1 in the highest esteem and would never drop my devotion to this man.
Aug 7, 2007 - 11:50 pm David Rochlin:Aguina was not violating the law, because a reasonable case can be made that the conference was not a political event. Perhaps Aguina regarded it as a media event, or even educational or something. Someone not very bright could mistake KOS events for something other than purely partisan and political and even think that the facts might matter.)
Aug 8, 2007 - 4:57 am The Die Hard:Supporting the war is not necessarily political. Democrats may forget this, but the war is a national enterprise that was authorized by law, and by both political parties. During WWII, were soldiers in Uniform who flogged war bonds, and attended parades, made speeches supporting the war, were they violating the law. No, they were not. The law does not forbid fighting the war. And explaining why we fight, and sacrifice is part of war.
Americans were sent to Iraq to fight this war, and claiming that anything supporting what they do, is purely political betrays more about those who make the accusation, than about those in uniform, whom they denigrate.
What Aguina did was flatly illegal, and he should be court-martialed and imprisoned for it. Obviously he’s in good enough shape to be sent to Iraq, but I would not want anyone that undisciplined, brainwashed, and blindly stupid at MY back, much less with a gun.
Aguina’s idiotic claims of Soltz’s “violations” are just that — idiotic attempts to blame everyone else for his wrongs, the same kind of sewage spewed by all the rightwingnuts when they’re caught lying.
If Herr Rove’s troll Aguina wanted to “make a point,” he could have done it in a less insulting way than calling decorated war veterans cowards, and lying about the facts. Maybe he can get away with that over at rightwingnut hate-talking-head holes, but not among an informed audience.
If Aguina didn’t want the crowd to see a clearly out-of-control, law-breaking sergeant rightfully dressed down by an officer — an officer who, unlike Aguina’s disrespect of both the law and common sense, was DOING HIS DUTY — then he should have come in civilian clothes in the first place, DUH?
Had I been on that panel, I would have had Aguina arrested and marched to the brig on the spot. Aguina should be stripped of his rank down to E-3, dishonorably discharged, and go to prison. He didn’t just violate the law, he dishonored all members of the military.
Aguina’s grandstanding, his parroting of rightwingnut chickenhawk propaganda — he ADMITTED to “reading from” the same BOHICA we get every day from the war profiteers — and his outright lying are in no way acceptable from a member of the armed forces. You have to wonder if Aguina really is stupid enough to whore for free, or if he’s sucking bushdick rovehole for a little something extra under the table.
Aug 8, 2007 - 6:33 am griffin:The soldier was fully aware that he was violating the UCMJ when he chose to wear the uniform to a political event. As a former marine I feel he deserves no special treatment. Soltz handled himself very professionally and even let the soldier speak for some time on the mic. Wes Clarke should make sure the soldier is prosecuted, as to knowingly show up at a political event in uniform does a diservice to the military which is nonpartisan and to the men and women who have previously worn the uniform in service of the country. Daily Kos is a political event. Being in Iraq does not give Aquina special priviledge to speak in public in uniform. He broke the UCMJ. I wonder how if the roles were reversed and it was a right leaning event and a left leaning soldier, how fast that soldier would be prosecuted? Under the Bush Administration I assume very quickly. We’ve seen that type of hypocrisy with tax exempt churches. Left churches lose status while right ones are free to preach. It’s a screwed up country these days.
Aug 8, 2007 - 9:44 am JP:Kudos to the Sgt. I’d much quicker believe him, than Soltz. For the record, here’s the verbiage for article 88:
Article 88-Contempt toward officials
Text.
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
Aug 8, 2007 - 12:50 pm A.Political:My lord, the hypocrisy on this one is tangible…the Kokesh incident is comparable, on the surface he Sgt should be disciplined (as Kokesh was) and if Soltz was in violation of any rules he too should punished…but really the brass tacks of this are the guy showed up in uniform to a political event, then ADMITTED he knew he was breaking the rules the next day when he repeated his actions.
No personal attacks on Gen.Clark, Soltz or Aquinas changes that, nor does claiming your ex-military mean you can re-interpret the existing rules based on your ideology or personal feelings (calling the Gen a p*ssy was real nice) and apply them willy-nilly to suit your agenda….gah all of you have moved way beyond the real issue of this event in trying to make your point, rules were broken and punishment will be meted out if deemed necessary to Aquinas for sure (I mean c’mon everyone agrees, even himself he broke the rules) and Soltz if he has as well.
Aug 10, 2007 - 9:07 pm vonmeth:Could all please look at this more rationaly?
“The question is, was it a speech, or a question?
So, YOU get your facts straight.”
The thing he violated was this ..
“(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except
as authorized by competent authority.”
This was a public interview, no?
“(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.”
Does not the the DailyKos event seem like an extremist organization?
I little background information is good to have.
Soltz had spoke with the gentleman earlier, and told him that he should not be there in his military uniform. He had already discreetly told the gentleman not to.
If you actually watch the video, he warns him not to say anything political (even though he is already in violation by just being there in uniform). And if you actually listen to the video, you can hear Aguina ranting in the background.
Let us try not to make this political. Please.
His one and only beef was with him being in uniform, not for making statements or presenting an arguement …
*sigh*
Aug 10, 2007 - 11:09 pm